75

1.— 13b.

J. OAUGHLEY.^

Aci to give religious instruction in the high scJ Is. Be came as a member of the Committee and as a citizen to discuss the matter with the responsible Minister. Sigh schools were public schools within the meaning of the Act, as no fees were charged, and if the Act mentioned public schools he thoughi n was undesirable t<> make a technical distinction, li was an evasion of the fights nr the Churches. As citizens of New South Wales, the members of the Committee saw the danger of the country becoming, to a large extent, materialistic. A headmaster of a certain school had told him thai In had frequently received letters from parents telling him they did not desire thai then , hoys should l>e t ; i v <j: 111 anything that would not pay; and that subjects that would do nothing more than mould the boys' characters did not mattei , ai all. Archdeacon Boyce said that in consequence of schools being made high schools. classes winch hail been receiving religious instruction wire not quite shut out from the clergy, who were prevented from having access to these schools." The deputation went there on the subject of gaining access to high schools, which tiny regarded themselves as denied —high schools which a month before had been primary schools?— I recognize all that, but it does not touch the point I raised. The newspaper repori says, •■ Mr. Carmichael gave no promise as to modifying the present syllabus in the direction desired by Mr. Hole, and contended that the clergy were not taking advantage of their opportunities. If he paid a visit to certain schools where there were resident clergy near, he was of opinion that he should find thai many had not availed themselves of the opportunity to visit the schools in order fco give religious instruction. So that if religious instruction "ere not given in the schools the onus fell on those who had the right and had not availed themselves of it." In the beginning when I gave the quotation I quoted it with regard to a specific point, and the point on which 1 quoted Mi , . Canniehael was. that the clergy neglected their opportunities u> pay visits to the schools. Canon Garland evidently wishes to show that this criticism of the neglect of the clergy to pay visits applies to secondary schools. but it also applies to primary schools. 85. I did not catch your leading the beginning of Mr. Carmichael's remarks where they referred to the high schools. He said, "There had been no alteration made in the rights and privileges formerly enjoyed- they hail been conserved with regard to the high schools. In all high schools of the State (he Committee might cany out religions instruction, because instructions had been given in order to allow it. If he paid a visit to certain schools where there were resident clergy heal , he was of opinion that he should find that inali\ had not availed themselves of the opportunity to visit the schools in order to give religious instruction." My construction is that when he speaks of schools in the second instance he is referring to exactly the same when referring to high schools. That was the object of the deputation. Then you left out what he said at the end—" Me hail just received a report from the Inspectors who had inquired into the giving of religious instruction, and it was quite satisfactory " I—(livingl—(living religious ilist ruction where? 86. Well. T did not say where?—] wish to reply to that, because this point ought to be made dear. The Rev. Mr. Chambers, whom I quoted, preached a sermon in the Anglican church, and I will give evidence that he refuted the point you arc pressing on me. 87. I wish to make this point clear that Mr. ('a niiicliael was referring to the question of whether they had the right to go into the high schools or not. and that he turned round and said "I have given instructions, and my complaint is that you are not gointr in "1 —That is not the meaning, because in that statement of Mr. Chanihers's. who is a Rector and ought to know, he says distinctly that they have no right to give religious instruction in those schools. ■ 88. On the (itb September, 1918, 1 received a letter from one of the speakers at that deputation : would you like to read it >. —1 am quite willing to hear you read it. 89. It is from Mr. .lames Hole, organizing secretary, and a member of the Committee that weiii to the Minister. He wrote. "The Archbishop of Sydney has instructed me to give you what information I can with regard to our work of religious instruction in order that you may be in a better position to combal I he absurd statements that seem to be going the round of New Zealand. 'I , he mail leaves lOr Wellington at 10.30 this morning, so it will lie impossible for me at this stage to enter via'v fully into the matter. The Church of England in New South Wales is not in the slightest degree dissatisfied with the system of religious instruction in force here. I cannot conceive that any member of our Church would wish for its alteration. Some may wish for denominational schools, but they do not wish the public schools to be Oodless. What we have t<i be dissatisfied with is the support given by the Church people to the Committee appointed by Synod to carry on the work committed to their care. The members of the deputation that waited upon the Minister of Public Instruction in May last did not complain of the system. They had noted that, owing to the multiplicity of subjects in the new curriculum, the State teachers were inclined to give less time to the teaching of Scripture than was the ease under the old syllabus. This teaching is provided for by Clause VII. which enacts that secular instruction shall be held to include general religions teaching. Clause XVIT. under which the clergy and other authorized teachers give special dogmatic and definite religious instruction, remains the same as when you were at St. James's. By administrative action, a-t the beginning of the year. about a dozen superior public schools were converted into high schools, and in pursuance of an opinion given by a former Attorney-General entrance to these schools was denied us. One of the principal objects of the deputation was to get the embargo removed, and I am pleased to say the concession was granted even before the date of the interview " I —l have seen that letter before. In answer to the statement you have made. I wish to point out that when you get a response to a letter a great deal depends m the letter that went over, and those two replies you have referred to came back I" New Zealand as a reply to a public statement which I myself made in the papers when 1 quoted some reports of the Anglican Synod. T merely quoted one point that the Anglican Synod said—"We are reluctantly compelled to avow the conviction that